Hypocrisy and Embarrassment
TALMUDIC AGGADA
By Rav Yitzchak Blau
*********************************************************
FESTIVAL OF FREEDOM: ESSAYS ON PESAH AND THE HAGGADAH
by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik
SPECIAL VBM 20% DISCOUNT $20.00
*********************************************************
Anyone unconcerned with the honor of his Maker should not have come into this
world. What does this refer
to? R. Abba said: “This is one who
looks at a rainbow.” R. Yosef said:
“This is one who sins in secret.”
“One who looks at a rainbow,” as it is written: “Like the appearance of the
rainbow that shines in the clouds on a day of rain, such was the appearance of
the surrounding radiance. That was the appearance of the likeness of glory of
the Lord.” (Yechezkel 1:28).
R. Yosef said: “This is one who sins in secret,” in accordance with R. Yitzchak,
for R. Yitzchak said: “Whoever sins in secret, it is as if he pushed away the
legs of the Divine Presence, as it says, ‘Thus says the Lord: The heaven is My
throne, and the earth is My footstool’ (Yeshayahu 66:1).” Is it truly so? Did not R. Elai the Elder say: “If a
person sees that his inclination is overpowering him, he should travel to a
place where they do not know him, dress in black, wrap himself in black, and do
what his heart desires, and not profane the Divine name in public.” There is no contradiction. One source discusses a person who
can subdue his inclination; the other describes a person who cannot subdue his
inclination (Chagiga 16a).
The Gemara lists examples of indifference to God’s honor, beginning with
R. Abba’s example of looking at a rainbow. Since Yechezkel identifies the
rainbow’s appearance with the glory of God, it is inappropriate to gaze at this
phenomenon. Reluctance to look at
the rainbow conveys the difficulty of approaching and comprehending Divinity. As
R. Yosef Karo notes, it cannot be fully forbidden to look at rainbows, since
Halakha includes a blessing of praise upon seeing one (Berakhot 59a). He
distinguishes between the verbs “roeh” and “mistakel.” The latter, a prolonged and intense
gaze, is problematic when looking at a rainbow.
The former, a quicker glance of appreciation, is appropriate (Beit
Yosef Orach Chayim 229).
The idea that a rainbow symbolizes the Divine Presence may influence our
understanding of the covenant God makes with Noach. Why does a rainbow indicate that God
will never bring another deluge?
Ramban explains that the rainbow is the bow of a weapon that God turns
away from humanity, signifying that He
will not fire upon us again (commentary on Bereishit 9:12). R. Yosef Bekhor Shor suggests, based
on Yechezkel, that the rainbow
symbolizes God’s glory; its appearance shows Divine favor and affirms God’s
enduring affection for humanity (commentary on Bereishit 9:13).
Meiri seems to understand R. Abba in a more symbolic fashion. R. Abba speaks of those who
investigate certain unsolvable metaphysical mysteries represented by the
rainbow. This understanding would
fit with the broader theme of the mishna that this gemara comments
on, which cautions against asking “what is above, what is below, what is before,
and what is after” (Chagiga 11b).
According to this reading, the Gemara says nothing negative about
physically looking at a rainbow; it only cautions against the wrong kind of
intellectual speculation.
R. Yosef provides another example of indifference to the glory of God
–sinning in secret. After all,
someone who sins in secret fears the disapproval of human society, but not that
of his Creator. Along the same
lines, a famous gemara explains why a burglar pays double, whereas a
mugger does not. Only the thief
hypocritically maintains a respectable face in society, while not caring that
God knows the truth about his transgressions.
At least, the mugger treats God and mankind with the same indifference (Bava
Kama 79b).
At first glance, R. Yosef’s teaching seems to contradict that of R. Elai,
who prefers that people sin in secret.
Before discussing the gemara’s resolution, it is important to note
that some commentaries refuse to take R. Elai at face value. Would a sage ever explicitly endorse
sin? Rabbenu Chananel explains that
the arduous journey, combined with dressing in black, will help a person conquer
his inclination. Being away from
the comforts of home may also help motivate a person to escape his spiritual
quicksand. Thus, R. Elai does not
counsel sinning in private; rather, he offers a strategy for conquering
difficult temptations.
We appreciate the motivation for this interpretation but, as Tosafot note, it is
not the simple reading of R. Elai, who instructs the person to “do what his
heart desires” in the new location. These words seem to describe actual sinful
behavior, not desisting at the last minute. One version of Rabbenu Chananel’s
interpretation deals with this problem by suggesting that R. Elai spoke of
actions that are not technically sinful, but which provide a likely environment
for sin. For example, a person finds himself excessively drawn towards
overindulgence in eating and drinking or wild party music. R. Elai tells such a person to go
indulge in his steaks, beer and music elsewhere, in the hope that this person
will stop his deterioration before moving to concrete acts of sin.
Rif (Moed Katan 9a) understands R. Elai as promoting sin given the
specific context, but says that we reject his position. We affirm the remarkable human
ability to withstand great temptations and overcome religious obstacles. As our sages say: “Everything is in
the hands of heaven, except for fear of heaven” (Berakhot 33b). Human moral and religious choices
belong in the category of fear of heaven, in which human freedom reigns, not
determinism or compulsion. If so,
we would advise a struggling individual to find the wherewithal to escape sin,
rather than tell him to go violate religious principles in private.
Like Rif, Tosafot explain R. Elai as speaking of real transgressions, but
they do not say that Halakha rejects this position. Let us now return to our gemara’s
answer and work out the implications.
Someone who could conquer his inclination, but chooses to sin in private,
is indeed a hypocrite and indifferent to God’s watchful eye. R. Yosef sharply criticizes such a
person. However, we can imagine a different type of personality, who very much
wants to avoid sin, but finds he is unable to do so. In that case, sinning privately
reflects genuine shame, rather than hypocrisy or caring more about human opinion
than that of God. Sinning in
private can either reflect something ugly or something refined. For some individuals, sinning in
private stinks of hypocrisy and reveals a blasé attitude about the Divine judge. For others, it reflects authentic
embarrassment about religious shortcomings.
In what sense does the person who sins in secret push away “the legs of
the Divine Presence”? Rashi (Chagiga
16a) explains that this person denies God’s providence over the world, since he
acts as if God will not notice his transgressions behind closed doors. Maharal, in his Chiddushei
Aggadot on Kiddushin (40a), questions Rashi’s assumption. The sinner in private might admit
that God sees all, but yet prefer that his peers not know about his
indiscretions. If so, he does not
push away the Divine Presence via denial of its providential eye. Maharal offers
a profound alternative interpretation.
Someone who sins in private pushes God away because the Divine does not
dwell together with sin. Pushing God away is less of an issue in public, because
the Divine Presence is more acutely manifest in the quiet spaces of life. The
solitude of being home alone or in a silent spot in the woods provides an
excellent opportunity to encounter God.
In that sense, misusing the opportunity afforded by privacy in order to
commit a sin pushes away the Divine Presence.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!